[Editor's note: This is part of a series examining the real world constraints on any proposed postseason design. For the previous entries is is best to start at the introduction of the series.]

The term "prove your worth" is ambiguous. For this discussion it refers to settling disputes regarding natinoal championship claims. It could just as easily refer to champions of at large conference having the opportunity to face teams from the top of the rankings to stake a claim of national relevance that conference play did not provide.

In most years the controversy is centered around undefeated and the highly ranked one loss teams. To become a widely accepted national championship these teams will need to be included. Teams with two losses are often seen as filling in since no other team stepped up to fill the spot they have usurped.

Five teams finished undefeated in 2004 and 2009, setting a minimum for the number of spots needed to satisfy this criteria. In 2009 the #5 undefeated team, the Boise St. Broncos, beat the #4 undefeated team, the TCU Horned Frogs, demonstrating that including only the top 4 undefeated teams is not sufficient for every year.

Including five teams would require at least three rounds for some teams.

Now for a look at several designs in the context of this constraint

[This page is derived strongly from the corresponding section in my postseason plan, with permission from the author ;) If you really wanted to, you could read ahead to see what is on the way. The plan also includes a table summarizing how each design fared against all the constrain presented.]

Old Bowl System

More teams had an opportunity to prove their worth in multiple high profile games, making the entire top five viable candidates for the national championship if they perform well.

The national championship was far more subjective than today. Pairing the top two teams generally amplifies a small consensus prior to the game into a moderate consensus after the game.

BCS

The BCS generates games between quality teams that would not happen in the regular season or under the old bowl system. This allows more questions to be answered on the field than ever before in the history of college football.

A Tier Based Plus-One

A second bowl game would give teams that did not have an opportunity to play quality opponents during the regular season a chance to face nationally recognized opponents in two high profile games.

A Flexible Championship System

This design enhances the paradigm for selecting the best teams and customizing the tournament around each year’s situation, allowing the consensus best teams to participate each year. Allowing a second bowl for all teams with nine FBS wins would enhance the opportunity for the next level of teams below national championship teams to prove their status as a regional power to a national audience.

Enhanced Bowl Season

All teams would have a reasonable path to the national tile every year. With one prominent all or nothing design little room is left for achievements between a conference championship and a national championship.

The Wetzel Plan

With all conference champions and five at large teams all undefeated and most one loss teams would be included every year. Little room is left for accomplishments between conference championships an a national championship.